h1

The World Hearts Obama’s Foreign Policy

June 15, 2008

I was staying up late watching CNN tonight (yea, nice way to spend a Saturday night, but oh well), and I saw them mention this latest Pew Research Center survey of 24,000 people in 24 countries.  Unsurprisingly (to me, anyway), the majority of the international population polled had more confidence in Obama as the next president of the US than McCain:

Next American President

The survey also finds a widespread belief that U.S. foreign policy “will change for the better” after the inauguration of a new American president next year. Among people who have been following the election, large majorities in France (68%), Spain (67%) and Germany (64%) say that they believe that U.S. foreign policy will improve after the election. This sentiment is also common in the African countries included in the survey — Nigeria (67%), South Africa (66%) and Tanzania (65%).

Yet this belief is far from universal. In Jordan and Egypt, more people who are following the election say they expect new leadership to change U.S. foreign policy for the worse than say they expect a change for the better. Two-thirds of the Japanese (67%) who are following the election say it will not bring about much change in U.S. foreign policy. That is the plurality opinion in Russia and Turkey as well.

There is considerable interest in the presidential campaign in the surveyed countries. A large majority of Japanese say they are following the election very closely (24%) or somewhat closely (59%). As a point of comparison, a third of Americans are following the election very closely, with another 47% saying they are tracking the campaign somewhat closely.

At least half or more of respondents in such countries as Germany, Australia, Great Britain and Jordan are closely following the election. There is less interest in the election in many other countries, including France, where 40% are focusing on the campaign, Mexico (33%) and Spain (25%).

People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama’s, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate.

Obama’s advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain.

Interesting.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

50 comments

  1. “More of the same” is not what America or the world wants.


  2. This poll is funny. I say that not as a McCain supporter since I don’t like him but as someone who hates polls that say crap. Look at Sarkozy and Merkel. It isn’t about playing along to go along with a lame duck Bush. They both have foreign policy ideas that will make all the Obamaniacs weep whence Pres.BO tows the line. The Right will be screaming about how instead of leading the US is tagging along. That’s the cusp of things right there. The world LOVES the idea that the new US foreign policy will be about following instead of leading.
    I’d also like to point out that the world should be concerned that the Russian rating is essentially low no matter the Prez. Europe is in deep with the “new” Russia.
    I also would add it is sad they didn’t poll Afghanistan. They will be the first nation (yeah not Iraq) to experience the new FP of a Euro led hegemony.


  3. “More of the same” is not what America or the world wants.

    Wait until they possibly get a gander of Jimmah Carter Redux…Anybody that doesn’t see thru the message of this poll is woefully blind and in all likelihood a big fan of the feckless United Nations. Oh yeah, I forgot I was talking to libs.

    Next year, while tragic, will stay provide many a good laugh. I wonder what lefties are going to do if they get their man and their Congress and their world crumbles further? Still blame Dick Cheney?


  4. LOL!!!

    Just as I have been saying:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals–Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html#

    General, you’re much too nice for me to leave you within the ranks of the vile crowd. I’ll convert you yet.

    I don’t know why they need studies to show this. One swift sojourn around the blogs would prove that.


  5. I dunno Tex. As you’ve probably figured out by now, I spend quite a bit of time on both sides of the blogosphere, and I think there’s a fair amount of bad apples all around.


  6. Other than the fringe sites, can you show many any others of consequence that are worse than DU, PuffHO, or KKKos?

    I’m serious – I’m really not that much of a blogger as my time on on this site would suggest and it might be my ignorance of what’s out there.

    I do know one thing for sure. My conservative peers generally avoid the net like the plague. I have no doubt the ‘net’ itself is dominated by lefties – if you were to base your stats off just the net, you’d swear half of America were atheists.


  7. Tex-

    I do know one thing for sure. My conservative peers generally avoid the net like the plague. I have no doubt the ‘net’ itself is dominated by lefties – if you were to base your stats off just the net, you’d swear half of America were atheists.

    Well then, perhaps one shouldn’t glean one’s “proof” from a sojourn around the blogs.


  8. I don’t know. That poll seemed a little ad hoc. For instance, why omit places full of Bush love like non-Islamic, black Africa or Kosovo/Albania. That being said, I think it’s true the world generally has a crush on Obama. Whether this is due to sound examination of his foreign policy or more to simply embracing the egalitarian nature of a black man becoming the American president, I have no idea. Hell put me in that camp. I disagree with what little tangible tid bits we actually get from the man on foreign policy or, for that matter, any policy. That being said, the Dead Rabbit thinks that maybe just having a black guy for president may make everyone more warm and fuzzy. And the world needs more warm and fuzzy.


  9. General Chen,

    Well then, perhaps one shouldn’t glean one’s “proof” from a sojourn around the blogs.

    You’re right. I was wrong. I need that occasional reminder you fit right in with the Revolting Puke. There’s the asshole I remember from LGF.


  10. Just messin with ya.


  11. Obama has no foreign policy. How in the world anyone could reach a conclusion like that is beyond me. Both his writings and public statements expose his naiveté. Who cares what Europe thinks of us. I don’t want to rain on your parade but Barack Hussein Obama will never occupy the Oval Office. Why? There are many reasons why Americans aren’t going to vote for him, but let’s just concentrate on the big one shall we. The one that haunts all you lefties that are just swimming in guilt. I am not against a black man in the White House. It will not be easy to get one of integrity in there. Mr Obama does not have the integrity. Cook County is probably the most corrupt county in America when it comes to politics. There are too many questions. He makes a good speech, but like most lefties, he is all talk.
    There is a huge difference between a poll and the privacy of the voting booth. When a pollster asks someone if they would vote for a Mr Obama, not wanting to be seen as a racist, they respond appropriately. But once in the privacy of the booth there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell that he will win this election. The Democrats have shown us for decades that to them appearance is everything and they are the ones who always scream the loudest accusing everyone else of their own sins. I am a Southerner and I was old enough to understand politics during the Johnson administration. The party of the old south was the Democrat party and when it came to racism they wrote the book. Oh Lyndon Baines Johnson did push through all the civil rights but for purely political reasons because deep down in his heart he was a serious racist. And that’s not even debatable-that’s fact. He wanted their votes in the same way todays Democrats are pushing this immigration legislation–it’s the votes. That’s the sleazy under-belly of politics.
    So get used to it. The Republicans wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and they will put the first black person in the white house. If you think otherwise you haven’t been paying attention.


  12. Chen, holy cow, I thought I was getting enemy fire on my blog but you attract conservatives likes honey attracts bears!

    Letholdus, the notion that the Republican party will be the first to get a black man in the White House is patently absurd. Or let me put it this way, the idea that the current Republican party could get a black man in the White House is patently absurd. As Bill Moyers recently said on his PBS “Journal”, the Democratic party of 50 years ago was equally unable to promote black equality. The Republican party of today is the Dem party of 50 years ago. Maybe some 20 or 30 years down the line the Republicans will once again be the party of Lincoln, not any time soon. (One good example, that priceless picture of McCain honoring Martin Luther King while a black man holds an umbrella over Massa’s head to keep it dry.)

    Rutherford


  13. Rutherford this isn’t an attack on you personally…
    The Great Society,welfare the opposition to vouchers and so much more are all examples of the “greatness” of TODAY’S Democratic party. Democrats shouldn’t be so eager to pat themselves on the back for their strides in equality since they’re still guilty of standing over and in the way of blacks in America.
    Chen I applaud that you that you blog and allow discussion. It isn’t always enemy fire-sometimes it’s just discourse.


  14. I applaud that you that you blog and allow discussion. It isn’t always enemy fire-sometimes it’s just discourse.

    Unlike the “Rutherford”, another phony out of the Revolting Puke mold.

    How I do find it funny that the Dimocrats pat themselves on the back for their humanity. Their form of tacit racism, pandering for votes every four years, then putting blacks on the shelf it the most sickening form of racism.

    And anybody that quotes Bill Moyers as gospel, who made his fortune of the taxpayers backs because it certainly wasn’t talent, is a doofus.


  15. Tex, take a lesson from Alfie and avoid the personal attacks. It really hurts your credibility.

    Just to be clear, I also applaud Chen’s encouragement of open discussion … I was just kidding him about the number of conservatives who contributed to this blog entry, and the paucity of liberal support the entry got. As anyone who bothers to read my blog knows, I also encourage opposing opinions and out of more than 100 comments received over the past few months, have only deleted one comment which was totally off topic and unduly disrespectful. If my use of the phrase “enemy fire” was offensive, I apologize. I don’t view those who disagree with me as “the enemy”, I assure you.

    Rutherford


  16. I don’t really get how anyone can judge Obama’s foreign policy. Iraq has changed drastically in 6-month periods (or in one Friedman Unit), often in unpredictable ways. It could be that in 6 months, leaving just makes sense. Who knows right now?

    I would hope that Obama’s plan slowly morphs into Clinton’s plan, which was to tie troop presence to Iraqi-defined political successes, which seems like the only reasonable policy. As it stands now (leave no matter what) it’s kind of scary.

    McCain’s foreign policy is to change the topic and talk about World War II, which should be frightening in its own right. It’s funny how they talk about the dangers of Iran but then act as if Iraq isn’t meant to be a staging ground for contingencies. Those who accept the “Iran is Germany” logic will never leave Iraq, under pretty much any circumstances.


  17. Wait, I just said something stupid. Foreign policy is more than Iraq. Doye.


  18. Rutherford,

    Tex, take a lesson from Alfie and avoid the personal attacks. It really hurts your credibility.

    Are you dumb enough to think I’m here to earn credibility – especially with your type? If so, you’re even more confused than I thought. I already know you’re a hypocrite. You don’t want opposing opinion. That’s laughable…


  19. Blogprofundo, I think Obama’s generally stated strategy makes sense. He sees long term occupation of Iraq as a bad thing. He tells his military advisers the strategic goal of withdrawal from Iraq and then takes their advice on the tactical moves to make it happen. That may well encompass tying troop withdrawal to Iraqi political progress in a meaningful way. I’m not too worried that Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq will be reckless. I think he recognizes that he needs advice from the folks on the ground. The change from Bush will be that the folks on the ground will finally be given a strategic goal that makes sense and saves American lives in the long run.

    Rutherford


  20. Rutherford,

    I think he recognizes that he needs advice from the folks on the ground. The change from Bush will be that the folks on the ground will finally be given a strategic goal that makes sense and saves American lives in the long run.

    How would a schmuck like you know that? I’ll bet you don’t know the first damn thing about the military or war and it is obvious that your candidate doesn’t have a clue. You think us running into a fraidy hole is going to solve the world’s ills do you? Your passive approach sure did us a world of good on 9/11, didn’t it?

    I know several people either actively serving (including my best friend) or have served in this war and they disdain Obama, and I can assure you they would disdain you.

    Our military has performed more than admirably and all I hear from the anti-war, progressive worshipping crowd like you is criticism, and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, and new some esoteric new “strategic initiatives”. You clowns sound like some rip off artist in corporate America teaching the latest MBA scam.

    Why don’t you admit that not only has the surge worked, it is probably turned the war and freed 28MM Iraqis – who for the first time in their lives actually have a chance at freedom? Is there something not noble about that? Al-Qaeda is on the run and in disarray. Our military fought them in their world and kicked their ass with one arm tied trying to play by the NYT rules. Why don’t I ever hear your type discuss the positive?

    You know Rutherford, your duplicitous talk makes me retch. You don’t want to bring the military home for the sake of the military. You don’t admire their work, their bravery, their heroism. I will never believe that baloney coming out of your pie hole because that is not what you dwell on. You actively look for negative and frame it around “change” or “hope” or saving lives. And it’s not just you. It’s the entire collective left. So don’t give me your garbage about giving a damn about the troops because I’ll call you a liar.


  21. Chen I applaud that you that you blog and allow discussion. It isn’t always enemy fire-sometimes it’s just discourse.

    While it’s true that the Chamber was primarily for this purpose and this led to things like the Alliance and using “emblems” instead of deleting or banning commenters, I really don’t think it’s worth of that much praise. I mean, it’s just a blog. It’s not like people are able to leave flaming bags of shit on my doorstep (I could have sworn that there was a name for that childish move, but it escapes me at me moment) or key my car, after all. I can’t figure out why other bloggers feel so intimidated to have others challenge their views (even rudely), especially when it’s pretty much anonymous.

    But I appreciate the compliments, so thanks.


  22. Has anyone asked this question, though… Is a President with policies that are loved by a bunch of foreign countries necessarily good for America?


  23. A typical move of some conservatives is to tell folks who oppose the war that they “don’t support the troops.” The idea is if you paint me unpatriotic I’ll walk away with my tail between my legs, face red with shame. Sorry, the ploy does not work. The argument against the war is not an argument against the troops. They are indeed (for the most part) brave men and women who are dutifully carrying out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief. They’ve been put in a horrible situation, and from what I understand, treated rather poorly for their trouble when they come home. Even their supposed champion McCain does not support legislation that would benefit them.

    If a decrease in violence in Iraq is a measure of the surge working, then there is indeed evidence of that. In fact, I’m quite concerned that these statistics will make it harder for Obama to make his case to leave. What’s needed is meaningful change in Iraqi politics so that we don’t have to babysit the feuding siblings ad infinitum. The decrease in US casualties is the smoke screen McCain will use to keep us bogged down there for who knows how much longer.

    Finally, last time I looked, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and it was Bush’s administration who ignored intelligence reports that said, and I paraphrase here, “Osama bin Laden to attack US.”

    Rutherford


  24. Redstaterighthand, you’re absolutely right that having the support of foreign countries does not ipso facto make a President’s policies good. The trouble is that the opposite has not served us well the past 7 years. It isn’t so much a matter of winning a popularity contest among foreign countries. It’s a matter of showing a willingness to cooperate in the global community and not act unilaterally. My guess is if we got underneath the statistics in Chen’s post, we’d hear that our foreign neighbors want a break from cowboy diplomacy. They’d like to see the United States live up to its ideals again.


  25. redstaterighthand-

    Has anyone asked this question, though… Is a President with policies that are loved by a bunch of foreign countries necessarily good for America?

    I suppose that if you substitute “loved” with “hated”, you have just as interesting a question, and I would say that the answer would be no, not necessarily. But as often as I’ve heard Bush chide the Dems for policies of “isolationism”, I’d argue that not giving a rip about what other countries think about them represents a distinctive form of it.


  26. A typical move of some conservatives is to tell folks who oppose the war that they “don’t support the troops.” The idea is if you paint me unpatriotic I’ll walk away with my tail between my legs, face red with shame. Sorry, the ploy does not work. The argument against the war is not an argument against the troops.

    The problem with your retort is that you do hate the military. If not, then tell me why you’re so dead set on not allowing the military to finish their mission – which is exactly what a vast majority of them want to accomplish? Follow your rules and the 4,000+ deaths do become meaningless which you thinks hurts Bush who you blame for your own miserable being. Your intent is not helping the military or their family – your intent is to get your messiah and all his toadies elected, no matter who or what is affected.

    If you have to use their deaths to score political points, so be it.


  27. “The problem with your retort is that you do hate the military. If not, then tell me why you’re so dead set on not allowing the military to finish their mission – which is exactly what a vast majority of them want to accomplish?”

    The military exists and functions for the sake of the American citizen. If the American citizen (or the President-elect) wants them to quit doing their job, then they better damn well quit doing their job. The question of whether this is meaningless or not is up to the individual voter and elected official.

    Ending the war is not hating the military, it’s wanting to alter the nations political course. By altering the course away from war, the military as a tool is not necessary.

    That’s a hard pill to swallow. Governments kill soldiers in the name of political expediency and agenda and they always will. It’s basically what a military in a democratic nation does. If you want to fight wars for the sake of the military, then maybe you ought to move to a country with a military dictatorship. I hear Burma’s nice.


  28. Blogo,

    It actually scares me that fools like you are entering our military. It happened in the education, it’s happened in our schools, and now apparently the neo-pagan left has infiltrated our military. Everything you touch turns to shit.

    But you’re right about one thing. I need to be more careful about simply supporting every wannabee soldier. You’re a fuckin’ detriment and an embarrassment to a fine establishment. Here’s hoping one of our good guys ends your little personal jihad quickly.


  29. Oh, and one other think Blogo. Since your history seems a little skewed about simply abandoning missions and what happens thereafter, let me put it in terms an imbecile like you might understand.

    Don’t start something and not finish it. Or is your training not deep enough to understand the problem with that fool?


  30. What are you talking about? I realize you want to be a big man on the internet, but take a deep breath for a second. The job to be done is to enact the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and, most importantly, to protect the Constitution. That’s the over-riding job of the military.

    Leaving Iraq would be massively regrettable on a personal scale for me. I’ve had friends die there and family members currently serve there and in Afghanistan. As I’ve said many times before, I think we need to stick it out in Iraq so long as our presence is associated with Iraqi political gains.

    However, if the American people decide we should leave then we had better leave. Claiming we should stay against the votes of the American people for the sake of the military is getting close to advocating a military coup. Leaving is not anti-military. It’s the way democracy works. Soldiers are the armed servants of government; they don’t give direction to policy, they enact it violently.

    You’re simply confusing the role of the military in a democracy. The military works for the politician, not the other way around. How could this possibly be anti-military? It’s acknowledging the shape of civil-military relations.

    And what the fuck in ‘neo-pagan’?


  31. Well Chen I’m still going to be polite even if you don’t really care. My politeness is a reflection of me not those I give said respect to.
    I can believe I’m witnessing the end of the Tex/Blogprofundo love fest from a previous thread.Wow what a difference a couple of days make.
    Blogo I would just say that the electorate should be fully informed and more willing to accept the military’s side of the issue. A knee jerk populist pull out is not in anyone’s interest. Although many in the “anti-war” camp embrace the laws and makeup of our democracy and many do honestly care about the servicemen as humans they are being short sighted (as is Obama et al) in flirting with a pull out and beating the occupation drum.

    The military works for the politician, not the other way around.

    Much like when you call a plumber the plumber works for you;however, to a large degree you are best if you leave the plumber to do what he does and heed any advice he may have for you.
    Iraq is and will be in a great position to negotiate and even dictate the future course the US takes in their country.The US isn’t at risk of losing a presence in the region since we’re all over the place there.


  32. Alfie-
    “I would just say that the electorate should be fully informed and more willing to accept the military’s side of the issue. A knee jerk populist pull out is not in anyone’s interest.”

    Of course the populace should be informed. But being informed does not equal doing what the military wants (assuming they want to stay in Iraq.) The populace makes the decisions, and they get to use whatever calculus they see fit, for better or worse. They should not bend to the will of the military, since the military is meant to act on behalf of the people. Being informed does not imply doing whatever the expert tells you, regardless of your own desires and interests.

    My only point is that it’s insane to claim that leaving Iraq is anti-military. It may be an uninformed decision, but if we do leave because we elect Obama, that’s the way democracy works, that’s the way our civil-military relationship is structured. How is playing by the rules anti-military?


  33. You’re simply confusing the role of the military in a democracy. The military works for the politician, not the other way around. How could this possibly be anti-military? It’s acknowledging the shape of civil-military relations.

    Do they still teach anything in your future profession about honor, duty and commitment or is that too passe? I am aware it’s now hip in your generation to call the Commander-in-Chief a Nazi, a fascist, or an imperialist. And if you happen to volunteer, that makes you even more of a hero when you don’t follow command. Isn’t that the way it works Blogo, big man on campus?

    What amazes me about your crowd is that you’re so willingly naive to see who your enemy is. You’re quick to criticize those that appreciate the thankless work our military provides, including those who actively support the military like I do in the only way I can. But you get some self-loathing fuck up like Rutherford and call out the calvary!

    Let me give you a piece of advice Blogo. You go ahead and join up for their cause. And I can guarantee you when they’re done with you, they will cast you in the trash heap so fast, you won’t know whether you’re coming or going.

    If you don’t understand those terms from above, do America a favor, ditch the plan, and sell insurance. I thought you had a shred of decency unlike the other skunks here – especially since you were working toward something noble. I was wrong.

    And what the fuck in ‘neo-pagan’?

    If that isn’t about as self-descriptive is it gets, then there is no use me explaining it because you wouldn’t understand.


  34. I was complimenting Blogo the other day for pursuing honor. My judgement was horribly skewed…it wouldn’t be the first time I had misjudged character without acquaintance.

    But I do bow at the altar of your piety and humble nature.


  35. Blogo with that said we could go off and discuss how “informed” the populace is. More of Iraq is in Iraq hands and every day that is more so. MSM= ? The Surge is the plan that should have been in place all along and it is working. MSM= Only now grudgingly admitting it.
    I find it funny how those on the Left like all the good Obamamaniacs believe the will of the people should be ignored on such things as religious freedoms,gun control,welfare and taxation just to name a few based on how we the people are all uninformed or unknowing yet on Iraq it’s go go go.
    With that said I would say there is a case that the “rules” are selectively enforced/implaced. I’d further stip that along those lines the position is clearly anti military in that it holds them and only them accountable for things the people did.
    Find a post Vietnam,Carter era vet and ask them about their experiences.


  36. Blogo,

    My only point is that it’s insane to claim that leaving Iraq is anti-military. It may be an uninformed decision, but if we do leave because we elect Obama, that’s the way democracy works, that’s the way our civil-military relationship is structured. How is playing by the rules anti-military?

    Please explain why our forefathers thought it wise to dictate that the Legislative Branch of our government can declare war? Don’t confuse a republic with a simple majority. And that is exactly what you are doing.


  37. “Do they still teach anything in your future profession about honor, duty and commitment or is that too passe? I am aware it’s now hip in your generation to call the Commander-in-Chief a Nazi, a fascist, or an imperialist. And if you happen to volunteer, that makes you even more of a hero when you don’t follow command. Isn’t that the way it works Blogo, big man on campus?”

    What’s going on? I never, ever called the President a Nazi, fascist, or an imperialist. I merely pointed out that it’s the job of the military to follow the commands of certain elected officials. That’s the way the military works, and acknowledging this is not anti-military.

    One has a duty and commitment to execute orders given and to protect fellow servicemen. Those orders come ultimately from certain elected officials. Those elected officials serve at the bequest of the people. If the people change their mind, you pack up, whether you like it or not. “We never promised you a rose garden.” Sound familiar? Acknowledging that is not anti-military, and it puts me in no “crowd.”

    Democracies make terrible militaries, and militaries make terrible democracies. That’s the problem with civil-military relations; that’s why it’s hard.


  38. Alfie-
    “With that said I would say there is a case that the ‘rules’ are selectively enforced/implaced.”

    I couldn’t agree with you more, man.

    Tex-
    “Please explain why our forefathers thought it wise to dictate that the Legislative Branch of our government can declare war? Don’t confuse a republic with a simple majority. And that is exactly what you are doing.”

    Yes, I was speaking loosely. Substitute ‘people’ or ‘populace’ or whatever for ‘elected official.’ Obviously, we don’t have referendums so clearly I wasn’t talking as if we do. I assumed you were quick enough to make the substitutions on your own.


  39. Alfie-
    “believe the will of the people should be ignored on such things as religious freedoms,gun control,welfare and taxation”

    I’m a little confused as to how the will of the people can be ignored here, if elected officials are the ones passing tax, gun, and welfare laws.

    The will of the elected official is as close to the will of the people as we get. Again, I thought this was obvious so I liberally substituted the two phrases for one another. Being serious, sorry for the confusion.


  40. Alfie-
    “I’d further stip that along those lines the position is clearly anti military in that it holds them and only them accountable for things the people did.”

    I think it’s a mistake when people do that. It’s in line with the mistake Tex is making: to assume that the military is extra-democratic, or outside the scope of democratic decision making. The military went to war in Vietnam because our elected officials told them to. We elected our elected officials. Could it get any clearer? Apparently.


  41. What’s going on? I never, ever called the President a Nazi, fascist, or an imperialist. I merely pointed out that it’s the job of the military to follow the commands of certain elected officials. That’s the way the military works, and acknowledging this is not anti-military.

    Why no, you don’t have the nerve to say such things as that would get you canned without pension. You’re just along for the ride…

    I think it’s a mistake when people do that. It’s in line with the mistake Tex is making: to assume that the military is extra-democratic, or outside the scope of democratic decision making. The military went to war in Vietnam because our elected officials told them to. We elected our elected officials. Could it get any clearer? Apparently.

    Extra Democratic? Why yes! That’s what I am saying the military is for. A military junta! That is what you suggested I recommend, isn’t it?

    Oh yes! Our leaving South Vietnam in a lurch because it was unpopular provided such a beacon of hope for the oppressed. It only took us 25 years to recover! Why, I think you’re right. We should go down that path again… I nominate you for Class President!

    Do the words honor, duty and commitment mean anything? My, how quickly that slipped the thought.


  42. Well, aren’t you saying that they’re extra-democratic? You argued that suggesting that the military ought to do what elected officials say is anti-military. Doesn’t this imply that the military ought to do what it does regardless of what the people say? Maybe I misunderstood you, but it’s hard to find the argument amongst all the funny insults (why do you think you can insult someone on the internet who’s using a stupid pseudonym, anyway? I’m here ’cause I like arguing, not because I’m trying to score points. If I wanted to score points, I’d use my real name and put up a picture. Doye.) And the Burma thing was a joke. Relax.

    Second, democracies can act like bastards. No one is denying that. I’m no expert on Vietnam, but it seems the government acted like a bunch of bastards. They’re messy. They make terrible mistakes. What you seem to be suggesting is that if the voter does what the military tells it, then we’d be better off. I don’t agree with that. We’re better off with the military an arm of the elected official, not the other way around.


  43. Blogo…First I’m not saying the people should obey the military or any variation thereof. My point was that imo the people have not gotten all the input the military has the to offer to make the best decision. I am also not saying departure is right and in the cards. In fact I think the military is on the move to display the ability to leave in larger amounts without the input from the idiot politicians.
    I don’t know if I’m guilty of a straw man or goal post moving etc. but I just can’t imagine this was said.

    The will of the elected official is as close to the will of the people as we get.

    That is sssssooooo not true.In fact each side of the aisle thrive on the opposite thinking. The Right says the pols are elitists that ignore the people and the Left says the same thing with a twist. I’m done thanks for the conversation take care.


  44. blogo,

    Well, aren’t you saying that they’re extra-democratic? You argued that suggesting that the military ought to do what elected officials say is anti-military. Doesn’t this imply that the military ought to do what it does regardless of what the people say?

    I implied nothing but that the military wishes to carry out the job and finish it the way it was instructed to five years ago. I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.

    Congress provided support for for Iraq. Even the MSM tacitly sat by and that’s what Rutherford and the rest of the dickheads say; not me. You idiots now act as if George Bush unilaterally gave the order to kill Saddam. They even went in front of the feckless U.N. The fact is most Americans are so disconnected from reality of war and our enemy that it is shameful; you included IMHO.

    You want a million quotes from your lefty side of the blog about Saddam and WMD from John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Dickhead Durbin to prove my point?

    I think Ann Coulter sums it up best about the Rutherford types:

    Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question is: Which side are the Democrats on?”

    –Ann Coulter

    And I’m convinced that Rutherford, the Revolting Puke, Ugly Kay and the rest of the American loathing ilk are on the enemy’s side, thinking it will score points so they can bow to Obama. You don’t like my opinion, fine. But everything the scum above says on this board insinuates otherwise.


  45. One of these days I should probably come up with an Chamber Emblem for netizens who actually stoop to quoting Ann Coulter to make a point. Kinda along the same lines as Goodwin’s law.


  46. General,

    One of these days I should probably come up with an Chamber Emblem for netizens who actually stoop to quoting Ann Coulter to make a point.

    Just because you hate Ms. Ann her doesn’t mean she’s not right! 🙂 I think she just answered your question from last week…and I love it when libbies squirm when at just the mention of her name. She does to you what Michelle Obama does to me.

    And you never grabbed the red herring symbol I suggested for yourself.


  47. Tex-

    Just because you hate Ms. Ann her doesn’t mean she’s not right! I think she just answered your question from last week…and I love it when libbies squirm when at just the mention of her name. She does to you what Michelle Obama does to me.

    Yea right. You got me.

    Actually, there is a long-standing decree that the the Chamber is a no-Coulter zone.


  48. Oh, I see. You’re talking about the attitude of the individual voter, and not the legal relationship between voters as a block and government.

    I agree that we should stick it out given certain conditions, and leaving would be a mistake, possibly a massive mistake depending on what Iran’s deal is. I also agree with Alfie that the average voter is probably under-informed. But I don’t think it is the voter’s responsibility to do as the military wants.

    I also get sick of the chicken-hawk side-line cheer-leading of the Anne Coulter crowd. They talk about sacrifice and duty, but then what do they do? Call liberals fags? Way to go! I only have a feeling of disgust for them. I don’t think they’re bad Americans, just contemptible humans. In my mind, they’re as bad as the hippies that call Bush a Nazi. They’re content with sitting back and TALKING about it; maybe throwing some money at it. Pathetic. You want to talk about the US as Rome, the belief that one can sit back and direct the world from behind a computer screen is a pretty good indication that we’re sinking.

    But then again, I have no idea what sacrifice is, right? Not like I’ve been to any funerals for my LIBERAL friends, you fucking sack of shit.


  49. I’ve often wondered if that Iranian that I cold cocked in 1979 and fucked him bad enough to send him back where he belongs thinks I’m a chicken hawk? Seems in his world, women can be pushed around. Not mine and the college agreed.

    But then again, I have no idea what sacrifice is, right? Not like I’ve been to any funerals for my LIBERAL friends, you fucking sack of shit.

    About your funerals…cheers. It breaks my heart. Hopefully, you’ll get a chance to attend more of them and soon.


  50. OK, that’s it. I’m closing down the comments to this thread, as this is really going nowhere but down. I’m pretty disappointed in both you guys, quite frankly.



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: